DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 and 27-30 are pending.
Claims 18-26 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “a planar flange having a recessed section” in line 7. It is unclear how a “planar” flange can have a recess. If the flange is planar, a recess would seem to make it non-planar. It would appear that this language can be interpreted potentially two ways. The flange is planar but the entirety thereof is recessed from something, or it is partially non-planar because of a recessed section. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as requiring the flange be planar and the entirety thereof being recessed.
Re claim 30, claim 30 recites, “a plurality of planar flanges each having a recessed portion” in line 7. It is unclear how a “planar” flange can have a recess. If a flange is planar, a recess would seem to make it non-planar. It would appear that this language can be interpreted potentially two ways. Each flange is planar but the entirety thereof is recessed from something, or each flange is partially non-planar because of a recessed section. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as requiring each flange be planar and the entirety thereof being recessed.
In addition, claim 30 recites, “sliding a recessed portion” in the last line of the 4th to last clause. “A recessed portion” is previously introduced in claim 30. It is unclear if these recessed portion is the same or different that that which has already been introduced. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the recessed portion” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-17, 27-29 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-17, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theophilus (US 2005/0268564) in view of Hagel (US 2002/0059772).
Re claim 1 in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 above, Theophilus discloses a window well (10), comprising:
the window well (14); and
a modular window well insert (12) which mates with (Fig. 2-3) the window well (14 at 24),
wherein the modular window well insert (12) comprises:
a body (body of 12) comprising a plurality of ribs (30) that correspond to (Fig. 1-2; “correspond” meaning to “closely match” per Merriam-Webster) ribs (30 of the window well (14), and
a planar flange (32) having a recessed section (32 being recessed from 30), the recessed section (32) having a depth corresponding to (Fig. 1-2; “correspond” meaning to “closely match” per Merriam-Webster) a wall thickness (of 24) of the window well (14); and
wherein replacing the damaged portion (as modified below) includes sliding (Fig. 2, no direction being claimed) the recessed section (of 32) behind a portion (24) of the window well (14) without deforming either the window well or the modular window well insert (Fig. 1-2), and fastening (48) the modular window well insert (14) to the window well (12),
but fails to disclose a method of repairing, removing a damaged portion, replacing the damaged portion with a modular insert.
However, Hagel discloses a method of repairing ([0002]; see also [0007] disclosing use with window frames), removing ([0014]) a damaged portion (12, 14), replacing ([0016]) the damaged portion (12, 14) with a modular insert (32, 34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the window well of Theophilus with a method of repairing, removing a damaged portion, replacing the damaged portion with a modular insert as disclosed by Hagel in order to extend the life of the window well, without needing to replace the entirety thereof. Moreover, it is noted that repairing via replacement of individual components to extend the lifespan thereof is extremely common in the general art, as well as across related arts.
Re claim 2, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, Hagel discloses wherein the damaged portion (12, 14) is removed from a bottom (bottom of 10 of the window well (10, as modified), and the modular window well insert (32, 34) is attached to the bottom (bottom of 10) of the window well (10, as modified).
Moreover, it is noted that although (per the above), with respect to Theophilus, inasmuch as 14 is directed to the window well and 12 is directed to the modular insert, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Theophilus wherein the damaged portion is removed from a bottom of the window well, and the modular window well insert is attached to the bottom of the window well in order to repair the bottom of the window well and extend the life thereof. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 3, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the damaged portion (12, as modified by Theophilus) is removed from a top (top of 14) of the window well (14), and the modular window well insert (12) is attached to the top (top of 14) of the window well (14).
Moreover, it is noted that although (per the above), with respect to Hagel, inasmuch as 12/14 is directed to the damaged portion and 32/34 is directed to the modular insert, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Theophilus as modified wherein the damaged portion is removed from a top of the window well, and the modular window well insert is attached to the top of the window well in order to repair the top of the window well and extend the life thereof. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 4, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, Hagel discloses wherein the damaged portion (12, 14; Theophilus: 12) of the window well (10; Theophilus: 14) is removed and replaced with ([0014], [0016]) the modular window well insert (32, 34; Theophilus: 12) while the window well (10; Theophilus: 14) remains attached to (Fig. 2-3) a home or other structure (Fig. 3; the remainder of 10 remains attached to the building/structure).
Re claim 5, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the modular window well insert (12) and the window well (14) have one or more attachment holes (44, 46), and wherein the one or more attachment holes (44, 46) of the window well insert (14) align with (Fig. 2-3) one or more attachment holes (44, 46) of the window wells (12) when the modular window well insert (12) is mated to (Fig. 3) the window well (14).
Re claim 11, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the recessed section (portion 18 of 16 and 18) of the modular window well insert (12) is at a top (top of 12) of the modular window well insert (12).
Re claim 12, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the recessed section (16, 18) has a height within a range of about 10 cm to about 25 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein the recessed section has a height within a range of about 10 cm to about 25 cm in order to provide sufficient overlap with an adjacent unit in order to fit bolts without damaging the remainder of the recessed section. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 13, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modular window well insert (12) comprises one or more tabs (20, 22) and one or more slots (62) that facilitate mating with ([0027]) the window well (14) that also has one or more tabs (60) and one or more slots (64).
Re claim 14, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a body of the modular window well insert has a varying wall thickness.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein a body of the modular window well insert has a varying wall thickness in order to reduce material use, and thus, costs, where strength is not necessarily as important along the body. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 15, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the body (of 12) comprises of a plurality of ribs (30) and wall surface portions (28), but fails to disclose wherein the variable wall thickness of the body is thicker at the ribs than the wall surface portions, the body of the modular window well insert having fewer ribs than the window well.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein the variable wall thickness of the body is thicker at the ribs than the wall surface portion in order to reduce material use at the wall surface portions, and thus, costs, where strength is not necessarily as important along the body. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus the body of the modular window well insert having fewer ribs than the window well in order to reduce material by making the insert smaller, and thus, reduce costs. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 16, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the recessed section (portion 16 of 16 and 18) of the modular window well insert (12) is on a bottom (bottom of 12) of the modular window well insert (12), which mates to a top section (top of 14 at 42) of the window well (14).
Re claim 17, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modular window well insert (12) comprises two recessed sections (16, 18), one recessed section (18) being on a top (top of 12) of the modular window well insert (12), and the other recessed section (18) being on a bottom (bottom of 12) of the modular window well insert (12).
Re claim 27, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modular window insert (12) is composed of (i) a fiber reinforced plastic, (ii) steel ([0021]), (iii) aluminum, or (iv) another metal.
Re claim 28, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modular window well insert (12) and the window well (14) have one or more attachment holes (44, 46), and wherein the one or more attachment holes (44, 46) of the window well insert (14) align with (Fig. 2-3) one or more attachment holes (44, 46) of the window wells (12) when the modular window well insert (12) is mated to (Fig. 3) the window well (14).
Re claim 29, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a height of the modular window well insert ranges from about 15 cm to about 150 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein a height of the modular window well insert ranges from about 15 cm to about 150 cm in order to provide sufficient sizing to form a rigid, durable high enough, window well. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theophilus (US 2005/0268564) in view of Hagel (US 2002/0059772) and Kim et al (“Kim”) (US 2003/0097802).
Re claim 6, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the modular window well insert is composed of a fiber reinforced plastic.
However, Kim discloses wherein the modular window well insert (Theophilus: 12) is composed of a fiber reinforced plastic (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein the modular window well insert is composed of a fiber reinforced plastic (as suggested as a known material in the use of the window well field per Kim) in order to provide energy efficiency, high durability and low maintenance, as all are well-known benefits of fiber reinforced plastics. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 7, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein at least some fibers within the fiber reinforced plastic have a length of greater than 20 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein at least some fibers within the fiber reinforced plastic have a length of greater than 20 mm (as suggested material of fiber reinforced plastic per Kim) in order to provide energy efficiency, high durability and low maintenance, as all are well-known benefits of fiber reinforced plastics. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 8, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein at least some fibers within the fiber reinforced plastic have a length of greater than 40 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein at least some fibers within the fiber reinforced plastic have a length of greater than 40 mm (as suggested material of fiber reinforced plastic per Kim) in order to provide energy efficiency, high durability and low maintenance, as all are well-known benefits of fiber reinforced plastics. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claims 9, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a thermoplastic.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a thermoplastic (as per Kim, disclosing injection molded plastic) in order to allow for simple molding into desired shapes/sizes. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claims 10, Theophilus as modified discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a thermoset plastic.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Theophilus wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a thermoset plastic (as per Kim, disclosing injection molded plastic) in order to allow for simple molding into desired shapes/sizes. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theophilus (US 2005/0268564) in view of Hagel (US 2002/0059772) and Theophilus (“Theophilus 2”) (US 2007/0006537).
Re claim 30, Theophilus discloses a window well (10), comprising:
providing (Fig. 1 showing 14 provided) a window well (14) comprising a window well body (body of 14), wherein the body (body of 14) comprises a plurality of ribs (30) and a plurality of corresponding grooves (formed at 28, between adjacent 30) interposed between (Fig. 1-2) a plurality of wall surface portions (28), each of the plurality of ribs (30) being positioned between (Fig. 3) two different wall surface portions (28) of the plurality of wall surface portions (28); and
providing (Fig. 1 showing 12 provided) a modular window well insert (12) comprising a modular window well insert body (body of 12) and a plurality of planar flanges (32, 20) each having a recessed section (32 being recessed from 30, 20 being recessed from 60 as no point of reference is provided), wherein the modular window well insert body (body of 12) comprises a second plurality of ribs (30 on 12) and a second plurality of corresponding grooves (formed at 28 on 12, between adjacent elements 30) interposed between a second plurality of wall surface portions (28 on 12), each of the second plurality of ribs (30 on 12) being positioned between (Fig. 2) two different wall surface portions (28 on 12) of the second plurality of wall surface portions (28 on 12);
wherein the modular window well insert (12) is initially separate from (Fig. 1) the window well (14), but is configured in size and shape (Fig. 1-3) to be attached to (Fig. 3) the window well (14), the modular window well insert (12) and the window well (14) having a generally matching width and depth (Fig. 1), wherein a portion of a face (at 16 on 12) of the modular window well insert (12) overlaps (Fig. 3) a portion of a face (at 18 on 14) of the existing window well (14) when attached (Fig. 3), and replacing the damaged portion (per the below) of the window well (12) includes sliding a recessed portion (of 32, of 20) of the modular window well insert (14) behind (Fig. 1-2) the window well (12);
wherein the modular window well insert (12) includes a plurality of attachment holes (62) located on the planar flanges (20, 22);
wherein each of the recessed portions (32, 20) has a depth corresponding to (Fig. 1-2; “correspond” meaning to “closely match” per Merriam-Webster) a wall thickness (of 24) of the window well (14); and
wherein the modular window well insert (12) is coupled to the window well (14) by a plurality of screws and/or bolts ([0027]) placed in the attachment holes (62), so as to couple (Fig. 3) the modular window well insert (12) to the window well (14),
but fails to disclose a method of repairing, removing a damaged portion, replacing the damaged portion with a modular insert, wherein at least two ribs in the modular window well insert mate with at least two ribs in the window well.
However, Hagel discloses a method of repairing ([0002]; see also [0007] disclosing use with window frames), removing ([0014]) a damaged portion (12, 14), replacing ([0016]) the damaged portion (12, 14) with a modular insert (32, 34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the window well of Theophilus with a method of repairing, removing a damaged portion, replacing the damaged portion with a modular insert as disclosed by Hagel in order to extend the life of the window well, without needing to replace the entirety thereof. Moreover, it is noted that repairing via replacement of individual components to extend the lifespan thereof is extremely common in the general art, as well as across related arts.
In addition, Theophilus 2 discloses wherein at least two ribs (28 being a rib depending on point of view, see Fig. 3) in the modular window well insert (12) mate (Fig. 3) with at least two ribs (30 being a rib, 28 being a rib in the opposite direction, 26 being a rib) in the window well (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the window well of Theophilus wherein at least two ribs in the modular window well insert mate with at least two ribs in the window well as disclosed by Theophilus 2 in order to provide increased strength and rigidity between the connection of the window well and the window well insert through an increased degree of overlap therebetween.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the amended language thereof. Applicant describes the invention and mating geometry of Theophilus, namely being a lip to lip configuration. While the invention and Theophilus may have differing mating configurations, the mating geometry of Theophilus reads on the invention as claimed and as interpreted under 35 USC 112, as described above. Applicant’s arguments concerning Hagel have been noted. Applicant effectively argues that Hagel is directed to art unrelated to window wells. However, Hagel is directed to analogous art because it is specifically pertinent to the problem being solved by the invention, being removal and replacement of damaged sections of structures. In addition, Hagel is not relied upon as disclosing any features of the window well, window well insert, or mating geometry claimed.
Regarding claim 30, Applicant argues that Theophilus 2 fails to disclose the amended language. As discussed above, Theophilus reads on the invention as claimed and as interpreted under 35 USC 112, as described above. Theophilus 2 is not relied upon as disclosing the amended features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635